You wanted it and now you have it.

Well there you have it; Obama won. If you’re a lib I am sure your happy, which if your like me, is just plain strange when you think about it. It is like watching a guy with schizophrenia cut off his arm to stop it from hurting him. If you are a lib I am sure your thinking “Oh just another republican ticked off he lost. GET OVER IT. (loser)” My favorite gloating comment came from a guy yesterday night who told me “Get over it and work with us.” No doubt he is all for unity. I, on the other hand, care only about ideology, conservative ideology that is (with some libertarianism thrown in to boot). This means that if Barrack keeps his promises then I could never “work with him”. Sorry, it does not work that way. If I disagree I will straight up tell you. “Working with him” would require going against everything I believe in.

This post isn’t about me being angry. As the title suggests, this is about what you want. You voted for Barrack and now he will be our president on January 20. I will merely be informative about what you have done to yourself. I am sure you won’t believe any of this but keep reading and remember. I told you this will happen. I will state a position you voted for and then show you precisely how you will get it. Enjoy.

“I voted for him because he will finally stop working for the rich and help out the middle class/working poor.”

Certainly he will tax the rich, and every conservative will howl at the idea. Not because we ourselves our rich (technically with my current income I would fall under Obama’s money giveaway), but because it simply is wrong, period. That is right, even if it screws me I don’t believe in taxes above and beyond what it takes to run the country (note: I am only including constitutional duties, not money givaways).

The problem is that he wants to kill the Bush tax cuts which, when implemented, decreased taxes for everyone with taxable income above 6k dollars. The cuts in the 2001 cuts were 3% for anyone in the 28% tax bracket and above and a tax cut of 4.6% on the highest bracket. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001 numbers for individuals, brackets are higher for all other statuses. You can also read the actual document posted by the IRS, though if you have a life (lucky) then you will want to skip it. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/01taxsh.pdf. That is a lot more in depth. Enjoy.)

“The bush tax cuts helped the middle class?” Yes, we have been telling you this for five years. What? You think we are going to lie? Why wouldn’t you make the same assumption about the other side? I don’t have a history of lying to others and most conservatives I know don’t either. To late though so this is what you get if this was your mistake.

Now taxes will increase on everyone. Certainly this will affect the ‘rich’ more but never-the-less it will hit everyone. He is a problem though. The rich can take a hit. If I had 200k and lost ten percent then, well that sucks. If you an the other hand have 35k and lose ten percent then that is the difference between buying a new TV and taking your child out of that jumpstart program for elementary. So say goodbye to your child’s college aspirations, hello McDonalds. It gets worse of course.

The ‘rich’ will want their 10% back. Since they tend to be the class that runs businesses then they will increase prices. For those of you who don’t read economics, that means inflation. Further, they cannot just raise prices forever to combat high costs. No one will by a three dollar banana. So they must reduce costs. If Obama didn’t already say he was going to mandate healthcare insurance then that would probably go. A pay cut would make sense but won’t happen because that too is locked out for any minimum wage job. So if your Richie rich then you will fire people. This means job losses.

“That can’t be true, Obama said he would create jobs.” The fact that you believe that is why people like me are shaking our heads in shame. Taxes NEVER create jobs. “But Obama said he will give tax breaks to those corporations that provide jobs.” Even if he does that it will not be sufficient to counter Obama’s progressive tax that is more then 50%. The tax break would have to be a fifty percent cut on Obama’s own proposed tax increase. This means that even if we were all lying about the Bush tax cuts then the middle class would not do well under Obama. Further people who pay no net taxes (i.e. receive rebates equal to their taxed income) will receive additional checks. Good news if you make less then 25k per year (till the inflation gets them anyway), but everyone else is stuck will the check. Have you figured it out yet?

“I voted for Barrack Obama because the republicans screwed up the economy.”

This is an example of a half-truth. Yes, Bush allowed several measures that increased the national debt to pass. This irritates me as well, but this has little to do with the economy. Why bring it up then? Because libs often do, usually using this as a reason against the Iraq war (front). Although this increase in debt does exist remember, article I section VII states “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives”. So this includes budgets. If you think this doesn’t clear the republicans then remember this. During the entire six years of republican congresses the debt increased 2,947,308,345,232.84 but under the last two years of democratic congress the debt has increased 1,891,061,112,953.10. This equates to 490 billion per year for the republicans and 945 billion per year for the democrats. That is nearly double. Even if the Iraq war had never happened the deficit per year would be only 100 billion less. (source http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway)

This really does not matter though since this has little to do with the economy until the printing presses start. However the Community Reinvestment Act is a big cause of our problems. It is the bill that created Fannie and Freddy, and during the Clinton administration they both were told to give out sub-prime loans en mass. Loans to people who cannot pay? Seems to me to be a bad idea but hey, who am I to judge Clinton’s economic ideas? This was forseen for years and ignored by the democratic congress. So now capital is running dry. Combine this with the taxes Obama will increase and we are screwed. (see a pattern?)

“I voted for Barrack Obama because he is pro choice/gay rights/environment etc…”

At least in this case you are voting for an ideology. In the case of abortion I think it is abominable and gay rights (i.e. marrage) I think the solution is a poor one. In fact I have already provided arguments against these so read those then come back.

“I voted for Barrack Obama because he is black and we need a black president.”

The argument for this is always retarded. Either we need to make up for past wrongs or we need to make history. The first one is easy to defeat because if that one is true then we should also elect Kim Jung Il for putting him through all the trouble we put him through with our sanctions. It would also make sense to elect an Islamic, an Indian, an Irishman, a Russian immigrant… see where this goes? Even though we have enslaved an entire people, that is not a sufficient reason to have one as president.

The history making argument goes awry as well. If this is your argument then understand it goes both ways. If Obama becomes a great president (a laughable idea), then he will go down in history books as a great man. You could continue this and say things like “our past wrongs would be righted” (see last paragraph) “Our world and our country will be more diverse” or any other ideas. The ones you choose don’t really matter. If however he is a bad president then he will be infamous. Even if he is a sort of bad president the world will remember him as a disappointment. This taken to its conclusion suggests that all we have done if force every black guy after him to live under his shadow. If he is a good president then hurray, but if he is even a little bad then it will be harder for every successor to get out. So by this logic I would say you only wanted to make it harder on them all. That is a bad idea.

The major point I am trying to raise on the last reason is that you need to pick someone based on their ideology not some superficial trait. It would be as if I picked Paris Hilton. Granted that isn’t entirely as bad a Barrack, after all, she does have a better energy plan the Obama.

Oh well. In two years we can take back congress and in the meantime filibustering is still a slight possibility. Barrack is safe though I have no doubt. Now that the election is over I think I will focus on theory a lot. The big challenge for conservatives will be to educate their friends and family. This isn’t just a war of people, it is a war of ideas, and I think in the grand scheme of things our ideas are better.

Back To School Obama

It has been almost a month since my last post. The reason is that I am currently dealing with the massive preparations involved in getting set up for my next two semesters at college. However, just because I am busy in my little bubble does not mean that the world has stood still.

Last week McCain and Obama had their first debate of sorts. It isn't a debate really, but more of a series of questions asked to both of them in two hours. Barak Obama, trying to prove he isn't a radical as the "Vicious Right" says he is, gave nothing but noncommittal answers the whole interview. This made him appear, well, noncommittal. This isn't good, as it is only a short step away from weak and can even worsen the flip flopping accusation he is already suffering from.

Later when McCain answered the same questions, McCain was more direct with every answer. This at best (for Obama) does not cause McCain to suffer the same problems Barrack is suffering from. At worst, it even can make McCain look strong.

(For those who did not watch this you may still find the unedited video on C-Span. If you prefer edited versions with snarky commentary then I am sure You Tube has more than enough to satisfy.)

I do not often relish in helping out competition and really am not fond of doing the same for someone as socialistic as Obama but here are a few tips for not doing this again.

1. Keep to your issues or, at the very least state, your false positions on your issues. You may be called a flip-flopper but that is eternally preferable to being called weak.

2. Give straight answers. If the ground you stand on is wishy-washy, then your ground may very well crumble into a vast landslide.

3. Stop pissing off your base and this goes for McCain, too. The more you stop talking the talk, the less likely your base will support the undecideds you might get.

4. Stand on your principles. A lie is still a lie and the American people are not stupid enough to simply accept anything you tell them as being the truth. The more you stray away from your positions in the primary the more people are going to resent you.

Also on another note, Stop Playing the Race Card, Obama! No one buys it. In a day and age when I would have to literally go look for a single racist, I am not going to buy that. There is this vast swath of voters and Republicans who want nothing more than to stop you from becoming president for many other reasons. Unless, of course, by racist you are including anti-socialists as well.

I don't expect anyone in the Obama campaign to read this or even anyone to read this, but I had to say it. Even if someone from the Obama campaign did read this, I doubt they would take heed. They know their ideas are unpopular. An idiot would take just a moment of thought to arrive to the conclusion that their ideas ultimately lead to dictator ships or as Jonah Goldberg argues, Fascism. Democrats know this, so their ideas are either prettied up or hidden completely. Just as well, I certainly hope Obama loses, then we only have Hillary to deal with in four years. Although I hate to say it, I think Hillary would make a less destructive president then Obama. Now if you excuse me, that last comment makes me want to take a shower.

Not Your Daddy's Father

Let me start by saying that I am a Catholic. I have been to mass, I have seen fathers speak of the word. I like my current father who really knows how to drive the word home. I have never been to a church though where my father/pastor or what have you screamed about snuffing out a shop owner.

Your lost? No this isn't Reverend Wright, this is Obama's other spiritual advisor. His name is Michael Pflegar, Father Michael Pflegar. He is a Catholic minister in Chicago as well. The first question I have isn't even what does this say about Obama but what happened to Christianity? Are these churches this crazy or are mine just that backward? Where is the peace? Is this how we teach the message of Christ? Was my memo lost in the mail? Darn those postmen. If this is what the church has to say to people today then it is no wonder there is a problem with recruiting.

There are too many of these priests for this to be some isolated incident. This is a problem that needs solving. Granted, Reverend Wright is not Catholic but he is still christian. This is a problem for every sect of Christianity. But hey, maybe I am just backward, one of the slow guys who fail to keep up with the world. If this is true then I am happy to be so.

Moving on to Obama. I did not judge as harshly for his first advisor as most did. Then again his ideology already was too much for me to stomach. Now we have two of his advisers giving very similar speeches in two different churches. Perhaps he met one through the other, in fact i think that was the case, but what about his wife's comments? His voting record? What about the plethora of topics I am not allowed to bring up lest I be called a heathen? If this were just one thing I would ignore it gladly and stick to the issues (I know he would fail on them all anyway), but puzzle pieces add to build a picture.

A while ago I worked at a different job and this job happened to have several pot heads. I didn't know at the time but the place was known for this. Despite who I was with, most of the customers I served could tell after talking with me that I was not a stoner. I would here comments like "What are you doing here?" So yes you can be judged unfairly just by who your with. This rule though applies only for so long. If these same customers saw me with a joint in my hand, a herby smell or a bong in hand then there would have been no confusion. Reverend Wright, had he been alone, would have been just an association, but with Pflegar, his wife and the new pastor of Trinity there is little doubt of the kind of picture we have here.

I already disagreed with his ideas on several levels. All that he adds here just gives us the why behind the what. For those of you democrats who are not sure still who to vote, just remember the why tells you more about a man's beliefs then his eloquent speeches will.